1

Helping Relations as Status Relations

Arie Nadler

Tel Aviv University

Inaugural Herzliya Symposium on Personality and Social Psychology

Prosocial Motives, Emotions, and Behavior

The New School of Psychology

Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), Herzliya, Israel , March 2008

2

Most, if not all, human societies tell us that we should be sensitive to the

plight of our fellow human beings and if we fail to respond to others in need, we are

likely to incur social costs and be labeled as immoral. This emphasis on the

importance of helping in social life has also been reflected in social psychological

research. As the talks in this meeting clearly indicate, for almost 50 years social

psychological research has been concerned with specifying the conditions under

which help is more or less likely to be given, the psychological dynamics that propel

this behavior, and the demographic and personality characteristics that are its

antecedents (Penner, Dovidio, Piliavin & Schroeder, 2005; Dovidio, Pliaivin,

Schroeder & Penner, 2006). This research has given less attention to the fact that

helping relations are also power relations between a helper who has more knowledge

or resources and a recipient who is dependent on his or her help. In today’s talk I

propose to focus on this aspect of helping relations and present theory and data on

helping relations as power relations.

My colleagues and I have pursued work in this context within the “threat to

self-esteem model of seeking and receiving help (Nadler & Fisher, 1986) and the

more recent model of “helping relations as status relations” (Nadler, 2002). The two

models differ in that the first focuses on interpersonal helping relations and the second

on intergroup helping relations but are united in two major respects: (a) both view

helping relations as power relations, and (b) emphasize the consequences of social

inequality that is implied by helping to the full spectrum of helping relations (i.e., help

giving, help seeking and reactions to receiving help) and not only for helping giving. I

shall begin the present discussion by addressing the general link between helping and

power inequality between helper and recipient, continue to a brief presentation of the

threat to the self-esteem model of reactions to help and devote most of the

3

presentation to more recent research which my colleagues and I have conducted

within the model of intergroup helping relations as Status Relations (i.e., IHSR). This

model explicates the ways in which groups use helping relations as implicit

mechanisms to create, maintain or challenge status relations between them.

(A) Helping and Power: Social Inequality in Helping and the “Threat to Self-

Esteem" Model of Reactions to Help

The process of human development is one of a gradual movement from

complete reliance on powerful others to self-reliance. This process is often stormy and

conflictual (e.g., adolescence) and reaches its conclusion when we become

independent and have learned to be proud of our achievements when they are

individual achievements. Later in life as we grow frail in body and mind we lament

our need to become dependent on more powerful others. In all, self reliance implies

strength and dependence on others implies weakness. This finds expression in the

positive value that is assigned to independence in various cultures around the globe.

The Koran states: “A charitable deed must be done as a duty man owes to man, so that

it conveys no idea of the superiority of the giver on the inferiority of the receiver.” In

the Jewish prayer book we pray to God not to “make us in need of others' gifts or

loans” and the poet Walt Whitman has captured this sentiment most eloquently by

writing that we should be “helping every feeble neighbor seeking help from none”

(cited in Nadler & Fisher, 1986). In all, society holds a schizophrenic attitude as far as

helping relations are concerned. It tells us to give a helping hand to all who are in

need, but warns us about seeking or accepting help when we are those who are in

need of help.

The link between helping and power is echoed in research in the social

sciences in general and in social psychology in particular. In the context of animal

4

behavior, research on helping in groups of "babblers" (i.e., a small bird that lives in

intricate social systems) notes that helping in the group is uni-directional and

downward: The more dominant member in the group displays its advantage by

sharing with the lower status member (Zahavi, 1990). This downward helping has

been viewed as a private case of the “handicap principle” (Zahavi, 1997) which tells

us that individual members advertise their genetic fitness by expanding energy in the

short-run in order to gain long-term genetic advantages. In applying this to human

altruism, Boone has recently noted that “expenditure of time or energy in altruistic

behavior signals the sender’s ability to bear the short-term costs of cooperation…"

and therefore results in gains in status (Boone, 2000, p. 12). On the intergroup level

Alexis de Toqueville, in his book Democracy in America, written 200 years ago,

observed that members of advantaged groups exercise their dominance over low

status groups by providing them with assistance (1853/1956), and Marcel Mauss in a

classic essay titled "The Gift" described the custom of Potlach, where tribal leaders

confer lavish gifts on other tribal leaders to signify their clan’s superiority

(1907/1954).

Research in social psychology has also noted the link between helping and

status. Van Vugt and his colleagues report empirical evidence showing that helping

within the group is motivated by the helper’s desire to obtain status in the group (Van

Vugt & De Cremer, 1999; Hardy & Van Vugt, 2006) and Brown & Smart (1991)

report that people remedy injuries to their self-esteem by giving help to others.

Research on reactions to help and the willingness to seek it indicates that when the

receipt of help implies inferiority on ego-central dimensions people in need prefer to

continue to suffer hardships rather than seek assistance that poses a threat to their self

perceptions as able individuals (Nadler, 1991). Under similar conditions people who

5

had received help respond negatively to its receipt (Fisher, Nadler & Whitcher-

Alagna, 1982).

The view that being dependent on others may imply relative weakness while

giving it implies relatively higher status and strength is the underlying conceptual

building block of the “threat to self-esteem” model of reactions to help (Nadler &

Fisher, 1986). The model begins with the observation that receiving help is a mixed

blessing as far as recipient’s self-esteem is concerned. On the one hand, help can

constitute a self-supporting experience for the recipient. In addition to the

instrumental benefits of allowing the recipient to overcome his or her predicament, it

can be a message of caring from the helper. When this is the case, recipients are said

to respond favorably to the receipt of aid (i.e., feel good about themselves and have

positive perceptions and feelings towards the helper). On the other hand, help can

constitute a self-threatening experience for recipients. Receiving help may contain a

salient message about the recipient’s lower standing relative to the helper. When this

occurs recipients will feel bad about themselves will view the helper unfavorably and

work to terminate the self-threatening dependency. The exertion of self-help efforts to

regain independence occur when recipients believe that they can regain self-reliance

by investing in such efforts. Research within this model indicates that characteristics

of the (a) help (e.g., its ego-centrality, Nadler & Fisher, 1986), (b) the recipient (e.g.,

dispositional self-esteem, Nadler, 1986; 1997), and (c) the helper (e.g., their similarity

to the recipient, Nadler & Fisher, 1986) determine the amount of self-threat in aid and

the willingness to seek or receive it and the consequences of receiving it.

This body of research reflects a shift from the more common research

emphasis on trying to understand who gives help to whom and why to research that

seeks to understand the other side of the helping paradigm: The recipients and their

6

willingness to seek and receive help. Further, this research views helping relations as

a complex and multi-faceted social behavior rather than a uniformly positive behavior

that needs to be encouraged. Recently, the model of Intergroup Helping Relations as

Status Relations (i.e., IHSR, Nadler, 2002; Nadler & Halabi, 2006) has extended this

view on helping relations to the analysis of intergroup relations. The model builds on

an integration between key concepts from research on helping relations and the social

identity perspective (Turner & Reynolds, 2001) and is based to the idea that when

social identity is salient people's behavior is explainable by their group membership

and needs to be analyzed with the conceptual tools of theories concerning intergroup

relations.

(B) Intergroup Helping as Status Relations (IHSR): The model and supportive

research

The model suggests that (a) by giving to the outgroup ingroup members

maintain their group’s positive distinctiveness, that (b) the willingness to receive from

the outgroup signifies acceptance of the receiving group's lower status and that by (c)

the refusal to seek or receive help from the outgroup, the low status group members

challenge to existing social inequality. Such reluctance to be dependent on the high

status group is an expression of the low status group's motivation for equality with the

outgroup. Before proceeding to detail the model and supporting evidence it should be

noted that I do not maintain that people give to outgroup members only because they

want to assert their superiority and are willing to be dependent on the outgroup only

because they accept their group’s relatively lower social standing. We often give to

members of other groups because we truly and genuinely care (Sturmer, Snyder, &

Omoto, 2006). We often help those of different color or culture because of our

common humanity and not in order to ascertain the ingroup’s positive distinctiveness.

7

Yet, as was the case with interpersonal helping, here too intergroup helping represents

a multi-faceted phenomenon. It can be driven by empathy and caring or the desire to

maintain dominance and social advantage. A full understanding of intergroup helping

relations necessitates attention to both these aspects.

The model suggests that the dynamics of intergroup helping relations as status

relations depend on characteristics of the social structure (i.e., security of status

relations), the help (i.e., autonomy or dependency orientation of the help), and the

individual group member (i.e,. ingroup identification) (Nadler, 2002; Nadler &

Halabi, 2006). I shall first outline the three layers of the model and then proceed to

briefly describe data which support its assertions.

Structural characteristic: Security of intergroup status relations. Social identity

theory tells us that secure status relations are viewed as stable and legitimate and

insecure relations are perceived as illegitimate and unstable. To make this important

distinction clearer we can consider status relations between men and women in past

centuries and at present. In the past men's social advantage over women was a secure

social phenomenon. The dominance of men over women was viewed as a stable and

legitimate part of social life. In more recent years men's position of social advantage

became insecure: It is viewed as neither stable nor legitimate social phenomenon.

When a status hierarchy is secure neither the high nor the low status group is

motivated to change the unequal status quo. When status hierarchy is perceived as

insecure members of high status groups are motivated to defend their social advantage

and members of low status groups view their disadvantaged position as changeable

and will therefore work to change the unequal status-quo (Tajfel & Turner, 1986).

How is this reflected in intergroup helping relations? When status relations are

secure members of advantaged groups are expected to care for members of the lower

8

status group and help them whenever they need it. Members of low status groups, on

the other hand, are expected to be receptive to the high status group’s help. Under

such conditions repeated instances of downward uni-directional flow of assistance is

consistent with, and behaviorally solidifies, the unequal status hierarchy. To continue

the previous example, in past centuries when status relations between men and

women were perceived as secure women were routinely helped by men to confront

daily economic challenges. This helped to institutionalize gender inequality. When

status relations are perceived as insecure members of high status groups are expected

to defend their social advantage by reinforcing the low status group's dependence on

them by giving them much assistance even when assistance is not requested. Turning

to the low status group, when status relations are insecure dependency on the high

status group's help is inconsistent with the motivation for equality and members of

low status group are therefore unlikely to seek or receive help from the high status

outgroup. Yet, these dynamics depend on the 2nd

building block of the model which is

the autonomy or dependency oriented nature of help.

Characteristics of the help: Dependency vs. Autonomy oriented help (Nadler, 1997;

1998). Dependency oriented help consists of providing recipients with full solutions

to their problem. Recipients of such help are viewed as relatively weak and unable to

help themselves. They are viewed by the helper and themselves as chronically

dependent on outside sources to overcome their difficulties. Autonomy-oriented help

consists of giving recipients assistance which consists of tools with which they can

solve the problem on their own. When helpers provide such help they view the needy

as able to help themselves. Autonomy-oriented help is unique in circumventing the

self-threat that is inherent in dependency. The recipient is being helped but retains self

control and large measure of independence. To use a very well-known metaphor,

9

dependency-oriented help consists of giving the hungry cooked fish while autonomy-

oriented help consists of giving them fishing rods and teaching them how to fish.

The merits of autonomy-oriented help have been noted by Maimonades a

Jewish physician and philosopher who wrote in the 13th

century: “There are eight

steps of generosity, one is higher than the other. The highest of them all is when one

gives a gift or a loan or makes a partnership with the needy or teaches him a vocation

in order to empower him so that he will not need to ask them again…". In our own

research we also found evidence for the lesser effectiveness of dependency-oriented

style of help. In one study we measured three different behavioral styles of dealing

with difficulties amongst high school students: (a) seeking dependency-oriented help

(i.e., asking for solutions to the problem), (b) seeking autonomy-oriented help (i.e.,

asking for instructions on how to solve the problem on one's own) and (c) avoiding

the seeking of help. We subsequently correlated these expressed behavioral

preferences with students' GPA at the end of the school year and found that higher

preferences for dependency-oriented help predicted low GPA at the end of the school

year ( Harpaz-Gorodeisky & Nadler, 2008).

The way in which group members use helping relations to maintain or

challenge intergroup status relations depends on the dependency or autonomy

orientation of the help. Since high status groups are motivated to retain their social

advantage they are expected to dispense to the low status outgroup dependency

oriented rather than autonomy oriented help. Low status groups are expected to

welcome dependency oriented help when status relations are viewed as secure. When

status relations are perceived as insecure members of low status groups are expected

to decline and not seek dependency oriented help from the high status outgroup and

10

be receptive only to autonomy oriented help which serves as a tool to expedite future

independence and equal status.

Characteristics of individual group members. The third layer of the model suggests

that these relationships will be affected by group members' individual characteristics.

Consistent with much research within the social identity perspective these patterns are

likely to be affected by level of ingroup identification (Ellemers, Spears & Doosje,

1999). Second, people with a dispositional need for relatively stratified social

environments, such as Social Dominance Orientation (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) or

Authoritarianism (Altmeyer, 1982) are more likely than people with more egalitarian

tendencies to use helping as a tool to establish social dominance.

Figure 1 summarizes this analysis: When intergroup status relations are secure

the high status group is expected to provide dependency oriented help to the low

status group whenever it needs it and members of low status groups are expected to be

receptive to such help. When status relations are insecure members of high status

group will give the low status group dependency-oriented help even when this help is

neither requested nor needed. Under these conditions of status insecurity members of

low status groups are expected to avoid seeking dependency-oriented help from the

high status outgroup and react negatively to its receipt. They will be receptive only to

autonomy oriented help. Finally, these patterns are expected to be affected by relevant

personal characteristics of group members. I shall proceed to present empirical

findings which bear on the validity of this model.

FIGURE 1

11

(C ) Helping and Status: Empirical Findings

The next sections will present empirical findings which bear on the validity of

the view that helping can be a social mechanism to assert the helper's power and the

specific predictions of the model. It begins with data which demonstrate that group

members respond to a threat to group's identity by giving help to the outgroup which

is the source of this threat. Because such help is said to be motivated by group

members' motivation to defend against threat to their social identity we have labeled it

as defensive helping (Nadler, Harpaz-Gorodeisky & Ben David, 2008). This support

for the assertion that helping can be a vehicle to maintain group's positive identity

creates the empirical background for the examination of the hypotheses of the IHSR

which centers on helping relations between high and low status groups. These studies

examined the model's hypothesis that when status relations are insecure members of

low status groups are unwilling to seek or receive dependency-oriented help from the

high status group. We close this empirical section by describing the results of a recent

experiment which indicate that in line with the IHSR model under conditions of status

insecurity the high status group maintains its social advantage by giving dependency-

oriented to the low status group. Importantly, this experiment has also demonstrated

that by induction of a common identity with the low status outgroup the phenomenon

of defensive helping (i.g., giving much dependency oriented help to the source of

threat) disappears and is replaces by the giving of autonomy-oriented help.

Defensive helping: Giving help to defend against threat to social identity. In

the first phase of our research we sought to substantiate the assertion that group

members can remedy threat to ingroup identity by giving help to the source of this

threat. In the language of social identity theory: Group members achieve positive

ingroup distinctiveness by positive means such as helping the outgroup. Consistent

12

with research within the social identity perspective the motivation for defensive

helping should be highest when group members experience threat to social identity

and have a high level of ingroup identification. Our aim was to substantiate this

phenomenon and by so doing lend empirical support to our assertion that group

members can defend against threats to social identity by making the source of threat

dependent on their help. My colleague Gal Harpaz-Gorodeisky and I ran two

experimental studies that examined this proposition. The first was a minimal group 2

(high vs. low threat to social identity) X 2 (high vs. low ingroup identification)

experiment in which participants who had or had not been induced to identify with the

ingroup experienced a high or low level of threat to their group identity from an

outgroup. The main dependent measure in this experiment was the amount of help

that participants gave to the outgroup member. The significant “threat to social

identity” X “ingroup identification” interaction, F(1,88) = 4.45,p<.05, indicates that

in line with our prediction high identifiers who had experienced a high level of threat

to the ingroup’s identity gave the highest amount of help to this source of threat. The

interpretation of this finding is is that “high identifiers” in the “high threat” condition

experienced the highest level of threat to their social identity and was a vehicle to

defend against this threat and uphold their positive ingroup distinctiveness.

Although this finding is consistent with expectations it is open to alternative

interpretations. One such alternative is that “high identifiers” whose “social identy”

had been threatened had experienced more negative affect than their counterparts in

the other experimental cells and that they had given much help to remedy their

negative mood (e.g., Cialdini, Darby & Vincent, 1973). This interpretation would

suggest that the increased helping in the "high identification-high threat" condition

represents an individual process of remedying a negative mood rather than an

13

intergroup behavior aimed to increase the ingroup's positive distinctiveness. To

examine this alternative, replicate this finding and extend its external validity, we ran

a 2nd

experiment using real groups. In this experiment high school students could

provide help to a student from another school which threatened participants’ social

identity or to a student from another school which did not pose a threat to social

identity. Since “defensive helping” is help that is given to the source of threat to

social identity we reasoned that if our interpretation of "defensive helping" is valid

more help will be given to a member of the outgroup that is the source of threat to

social identity than to an outgroup which does not pose such a threat. If, however,

increased helping is driven by individual-level processes such as remedying a

negative mood higher levels of help should be given by high identifiers who had

experienced threat to ingroup identity, regardless of whether the outrgoup which is the

target of help is or is not the source of this threat, than to high identifiers who had not

experienced a threat to identity.

The findings indicate that participants gave significantly more help to an

outgroup which had posed a threat to social identity than to an outgroup which had

not, or to an outgroup in a no-threat control condition (means were 6.36, 3.63 and 3.5,

respectively). This finding corroborates the concept of “defensive helping”. Further,

consistent with the findings of the first experiment defensive helping characterized

helping behavior of high ingroup identifiers. Finally, the findings indicate that

defensive help is given relatively irrespective of the recipient actual state of need.

High identifiers in the "outgroup-source of threat" condition provided help on difficult

problems and easily soluble problems. Participants in the other cells gave help

according to need. They helped more on difficult than easy problems.

14

Beyond ingroup members' level of ingroup identification research indicates that

group members' level of Social Dominance Orientation (SDO, Sidanius & Pratto,

1999) also moderates the phenomenon of defensive helping. Since members of high

status groups who are high on SDO are more likely to be threatened by threats to their

group's tatus that are those characterized as low on SDO they are more to engage in

defensive helping. This hypothesis was supported by Halabi, Dovidio & Nadler (in

press). Their study focused on “defensive helping” of the high status group within the

context of Israeli society. It found that high SDO Israeli-Jews gave Israeli-Arabs (i.e.,

high and low status groups in the Israeli society, respectively) more dependency-

oriented help than did low SDO participants. This was not the case with autonomy-

oriented help. This finding indicates that individuals who are motivated to uphold

their high group’s status in a stratified social setting do so by giving such

dependency-oriented help to the low status group.

Taken together these experiments demonstrate the validity of the concept of

“defensive helping” and are an important empirical corroboration of the link between

helping and status. This link is important also because social identity research has

considered only negative and injurious means (e.g., discrimination) that group

members use to cope with threats to social identity. These findings set the stage for

the empirical examination of the predictions of the IHSR which suggests that this, and

related, phenomena depend on the perceived security of status relations and the

autonomy or dependency-oriented nature of help. In the present talk I shall address

myself to two major predictions. The first is that members of disadvantaged groups

will show reluctance to seek or receive help from the high status group when status

relations are perceived as insecure and help is dependency-oriented. The second is

that when status relations are insecure the advantaged position of high status groups is

15

threatened and its members will defend the ingroup's high status by giving much

dependency oriented help to the low status group.

Receptivity of low status group members to help: Effects of perceived stability

of status relations and autonomy-dependency nature of help. To examine the

receptivity of the low status group members to help from the high status group under

conditions of secure and insecure status relations, we had first conducted a minimal

group experiment that was followed by studies using real groups. Our main prediction

was that because depending on the high status group when status relations are

unstable is inconsistent with the low status group members’ motivation for greater

equity with the high status group and the receipt of help under these conditions will

threaten group members’ social identity. This will lead to characteristic reactions such

as devaluation and discrimination against the high status helper. We obtained support

for this prediction in a 2 (help-no help) X 2(stable-unstable status) minimal group

experiment which found that members of low status groups who had been induced to

view status relations with the high status group as unstable and later received help

from that outgroup experienced the highest level of threat to their social identity and

exhibited highest level of discrimination against it (Nadler & Halabi, 2006,

experiment 1).

A second experiment examined the same hypothesis with real groups. In this

experiment Israeli-Arabs, who represent the low status group in Israeli society

received help from an Israeli-Arab or Israeli-Jew to complete a scholastic task. Prior

to that, half of the participants had received information that the status differences

between Israelis and Arabs in Israel are narrowing in the last decade. The other half

had been informed that the status differences between the two groups have remained

unchanged. This represented the unstable and sable status relations conditions,

16

respectively. The results supported our prediction. Arab participants who had been

told that their group is making headway in closing the gap with the higher status

Israeli Jews responded most negatively to help from an Israeli Jew. They had the

lowest affect scores (mean is 4.3, other 3 means ranged between 5.3 and 5.5), highest

ingroup favoritism score (mean is 554, other means ranged between 200 and 295) and

and devalued the outgroup the most (mean is 2.7 other means ranged between 4.3 and

4.5). Other experiments in this research program indicate that in line with the model's

prediction this phenomenon of negative reactions to receiving help from the high

status outgroup under conditions of status instability was especially true for members

of low status groups who were characterized as high identifiers.

In another experiment we examined the model’s predictions that when status

relations are perceived as unstable members of low status groups will be most

reluctant to seek needed help from a member of the outgroup, and that this reluctance

will be more characteristic of high ingroup identifiers and occur only when help is

dependency oriented. This experiment is particularly important because it examines

the interaction between variables that represent the three conceptual layers in the

IHSR model: The structural level of security of status relations (i.e., stability of status

relations), the level of characteristic of the help (i.e., autonomy or dependency

oriented) and the level of individual group member's characteristics (i.e., ingroup

identification). To test this prediction we ran an experiment in which high school

students, who had or had not been induced to identify with their school, could seek

autonomy or dependency oriented help from a member of another school which was

higher in its academic status than their school. Further, half of the participants were

under the impression that the scholastic differences between the two schools is stable

over the years, and the other half thought that these differences are consistently

17

narrowing. The results fully support our predictions. Highest avoidance of help

seeking occurred when high identifiers had perceived status relations as unstable. This

reluctance to seek help originates from differences on the index of willingness to seek

dependency oriented help. Specifically, while no participant in the 'unstable status-

high identification' cell was willing to seek dependency-oriented help from the high

status group, participants in the other 3 cells showed a medium and similar

willingness to seek dependency oriented help from members of the high status group..

There were no differences in help seeking when help was autonomy oriented.

Giving Dependency and Autonomy Oriented help by the high status group: Effects of

status stability and self categorization. In a final part of this section I want to describe

a recent experiment which supports the model’s hypothesis that high status group

members give much dependency-oriented help to the low status group when the status

relations between the groups is unstable. This increase in defensive helping is not

expected to occur with autonomy-oriented help. Another purpose was to study the

role of self-categorization processes as mechanisms that can be employed to reduce

defensive helping. Consistent with theoretical and empirical work within the common

ingroup identity model (CIIM) by Gaertner and Dovidio (2000) inclusion of the low

status group which threatens the high status group's advantaged position in a larger

common group should reduce the motivation of the high status group to maintain its

advantaged position by defensive helping directed at the low status group.

We conducted a field experiment with real groups to explore these hypotheses.

We had set up a computer interaction between Israeli high school students in a

prestigious high school in the Negev region of the country (i.e., high status group) and

a member of a high school from the same region with substantially lower academic

status (i.e., low status group). Participants belonged to the high status school. Half of

18

them received information that the status differences with the lower status outgroup is

narrowing and the other half received the information that it stayed unchanged over

the last 5 years. This constituted the manipulation of perceived status instability and

stability, respectively. Further, one third of the participants were exposed to a

manipulation which highlighted the uniqueness of their school as compared to other

schools in the Negev region (i.e., salient ingroup identity condition) another third was

exposed to information that stressed the uniqueness of schools in the Negev region as

compared to other schools in the country (i.e., common ingorup identity condition).

Since both the ingroup and the outgroup were situated in the Negev, this manipulation

induced a common ingroup identity with the outgroup. The last third were exposed to

neutral information and made up the control condition. Participants later interacted

with a student from the low status outgroup who was said to experience difficulties in

solving mathematical problems and they could provide them with dependency or

autonomy oriented help. The amount of autonomy and dependency oriented help

which was given to the outgroup member served as the main dependent measure.

A 2(stable-unstable status) x 3 (ingroup identity-common identity – control)

interaction, F(2,p6) = 4.92, p<.05 indicates that in line with our predictions highest

amount of dependency-oriented help was given to the outgroup when status relations

had been described as unstable and ingroup identity had been made salient.

Importantly, least amount of dependency-oriented help was given to the outgroup

when status relations had been described as unstable and common group identity had

been induced. There were no differences between the three identity conditions in the

stable status condition. A mirror image empirical picture was observed for the

measure eof autonomy-oriented help. A 2x3 interaction ,F(2,86) = 3.59,p<.05,

indicates that in the unstable status condition most autonomy-oriented help was given

19

to the outgroup when it had been perceived as sharing a common identity with the

ingroup. Lowest amount of autonomy-oriented help was given to the outgroup in the

condition when the identity of the ingroup had been made salient. No differences

between the 3 identity groups were observed in the stable status condition.

(D) Summary and Conclusions

The findings support the view that intergroup helping relations represent social

mechanisms through which group members maintain or challenge existing status

hierarchies. Regarding the giving of help the phenomenon of "defensive helping"

indicates that group members remedy threats to the ingroup by giving help to the

outgroup that is the source of this threat. Moreover, the finding that such help is given

on problems that are perceived as difficult and easy suggests that such helping

constitutes the helper's wish to assert his or superior social position rather than a

response to the recipient's difficulties. This research has also supported the major

assertions of the IHSR model of intergroup helping. In the face of information that

status relations are unstable high status groups work to maintain their group's

advantage by giving high amount of dependency oriented help to the low status group

and low status groups avoid seeking such help and respond negatively to its receipt.

Finally, self categorization processes play an important role in this context. When

status relations are unstable and the high and low status groups share a common

ingroup identity the patterns of help giving change dramatically. Under these

conditions members of the high status group adopt a helping pattern that aims to

promote the recipient's future self reliance by giving them autonomy-oriented help.

The velvet glove which humiliates the recipient through dependency-oriented help

changes into helping the recipient to climb the ladder towards future self-reliance.

20

Security of Status Relations: The conceptual linking pin between the threat to

self-esteem model and the IHSR. This empirical picture emphasizes the fact that

helping relations are multi-causal and multi-faceted phenomenon. It reminds us that

although helping is often driven by genuine caring for the recipient and is an

expression of the nobler side of social behavior it can also be an expression of

inequality in social relations. Both our early work on the threat to self-esteem in help

and the more recent work within the IHSR model tell the same story. In interpersonal

and intergroup interactions helping can humiliate the recipient or support and

empower them. The concept of "security of status relations" is central in both levels

of analysis. As such it represents a conceptual linking pin between the two models of

helping relations. Although this concept was developed within the context of research

on intergroup relations it is also applicable to the analysis of interpersonal helping

relations. On both levels of analysis, when recipients' lower social position (e.g., low

status within the group, disadvantaged position within society) is perceived as both

legitimate and stable dependency is viewed as consistent with their social standing

and expectations of themselves. Under these conditions being helped is not self-

threatening. Dependency on more powerful others conforms to the actor's and others'

expectations. Helping relationships between parents and their children, a new

employee and their experienced manager or between teacher and student represent

such dependency relationships. Social inequality and the ensuing dependency of the

weaker party on the strong one are socially consensual.

The situation is different if status differences between two individuals or two

groups are perceived by the recipient as illegitimate and/or unstable. Under these

conditions recipients expect equality with the other and being helped by them is

inconsistent with these expectations and therefore self-threatening. Our early research

21

which indicates that people find reliance on similar other who serve as a frame of

reference for self-judgments to be self-threatening corroborates this line of reasoning

(Nadler, Fisher & Ben Itzhak, 1983). Further, the finding that high self-esteem

individuals are more threatened by dependency than are low self esteem people is also

consistent with this conception (Nadler, 1986; 1997). In fact, relative to the low self-

esteem person the high self-esteem individual is more likely to view dependency on

others as unstable and illegitimate as far as his or her view of him or herself is

concerned. This emphasis on security of status relations in interpersonal and

intergroup relations integrates the "threat to self-esteem" and the IHSR models of

helping relations. Both models tell us that when status relations are secure

dependency of the weak on the strong is consistent with expectations and is therefore

a source of self support for the recipient. When these hierarchical relations are

insecure dependency is inconsistent with self-expectations and dependency is

threatening to self esteem. By the same token, dependency on another group when

status relations are perceived as insecure is threatening to social identity. In both cases

individuals and group members are likely to shy away from seeking help and respond

negatively to its receipt.

Importantly, both models tell us that the degree of threat to self esteem or

social identity that is inherent in receiving help shapes recipient's behavioral

responses. If this level of threat is high people, whether categorized as individuals or

group members, will shy away from seeking help. In a case where threatening help

had been given the threat to self esteem model of reactions to help asserts that if

recipients also believe that they can change the situation of uneasy dependency and

attain independence they will do so by investing in self help efforts. Thus, self

threatening help, while a source of discomfort in the short term, encourages long term

22

independence. The same is expected to hold for intergroup helping relations. Under

conditions of status insecurity members of low status groups who had received help

are expected to invest efforts to terminate their group's dependency on the high status

outgroup. From this perspective help that is given on the background of unsecure low

status (i.e., perceptions that inferiority is illegitimate and/or unstable) is a precursor of

change towards future independent coping on the interpersonal and intergroup levels.

The meaning of help: Transient or chronic dependency. The receipt of help

can denote transient or chronic recipient dependency. Some of the characteristics of

help which had been addressed by our research address this distinction. Dependency

oriented help is associated with a message of chronic dependency. Such help is

predicated on the belief that the recipient is not "strong" enough to contribute to the

solution of the problem (Brickman, Rabinowitz, Karuza, Coates, Cohn & Kidder,

1982). Autonomy-oriented help is linked with the view that recipient's dependency is

transient and regards him or her as able to contribute to the solution of the problem.

Another characteristic of help which is linked with chronic dependency is its

"assumptive nature" (Schneider, Major, Luthanen & Crocker, 1996). Assumptive help

is given without waiting for the recipient to ask for it and implies the helper's

assumption that the recipient cannot solve the problem on their own and needs help.

Such help is more likely to imply chronic dependency than one which is given in

response to the recipient's request. It should be noted that in our research helping was

assumptive. This raises the possibility that under similar conditions to the ones we

have studied receiving help would not have been a source of threat to self-esteem or

social identity had it been given in response to the recipient's request. A final

characteristic of help which is related to its implications for chronic or transient

dependency is the ease or difficulty of the task on which it is given. When help is

23

given assumptively on easy problems it implies more chronic dependency than when

it is given only on difficult problems that many are expected to have difficulty with.

To recapitulate dependency-oriented assumptive help on relatively easy

problems conveys a message of chronic dependency. On the interpersonal and

intergroup levels, such help is likely to characterize assistance that it motivated by the

helper's wish to maintain their advantaged position relative to the recipient.

Receptivity to such help signals the recipients' acceptance of the fact that this

dependence is part of a secure status hierarchy in which they are socially inferior. The

unwillingness to seek or receive such help challenges the existing inequality and

signals recipients' desire for greater equality and their belief that such a desire is

realizable.

I want to conclude by addressing two general issues that this approach to

helping relations as power relations raises: The first is the answer to the question:

What is a helpful act? The answer may depend on whether we adopt the recipient or

the helper's perspective. The second concerns the implications of this approach to the

understanding of social change on the interpersonal and intergroup levels. Regarding

the first issue of what constitutes help, the conditions under which receiving help is

linked to chronic dependency or to efforts to regain equality are important for

specifying the link between being helped and future independent coping. Further this

empirical and theoretical discussion raises the question of what is helpful behavior. Is

help which is driven by the helper's caring and empathy but encourages long term

dependency helpful? From the helper's perspective it is, but from the recipient's

perspective it is not. Beyond the conceptual implications of this research and theory

for the understanding of interpersonal and intergroup helping it has important applied

implications. One such implication is for the understanding of processes of social

24

change. It suggests that during times of change high status groups, and individuals,

will exert efforts to maintain their advantaged position by giving help which implies

chronic dependency while the low status recipient is likely to view such actions

suspiciously and reject the help. This occurs between groups during times of large

scale social changes (e.g., helping between advantaged and disadvantaged

racial/gender groups during a transition from a rigidly stratified to a more open and

equal social system) or between individuals (e.g., during times of organizational

change where an employee expects greater equality with his or her supervisor). In

these and similar instances tensions around helping relations may anticipate social

change and be associated with them once they had taken place.

25

References

Altemeyer, B. (1982). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg, Canada: University of

Manitoba Press.

Brickman, P., Rabinowitz, V. C., Karuza, J., Coates, D., Cohn, E. & Kidder, L.

(1982). Models of helping and coping. American Psychologist, 37, 368-384.

Brown, J. D., & Smart, S. A. (1991). The self and social conduct: Linking self-

representations to prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 60, 368-375.

Cialdini, R. B., Darby, B. L., & Vincent, J. E. (1973). Transgression and altruism: A

case for hedonism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 502-516.

de Tocqueville, A. (1956). Democracy in America. In R. D. Heffner (Ed.),

Democracy in America: Mentor book edition. New York: New American

Library.

Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., Schroeder, D. A. & Penner, L. A. (2006). The social

psychology of prosocial behavior. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (Eds.) (1999). Social identity: Context,

commitment, content. Oxford: Blackwell.

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common

ingroup identity model. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

Halabi, S., Dovidio, J. F., & Nadler, A. (in press). When and how high status groups

offer help: Effects of social dominance orientation and status threat. Political

Psychology.

Hardy, C., & Van Vugt, M. (2006). Nice guys finish first: The competitive altruism

hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1402-1413.

26

Harpaz-Gorodeisky, G & Nadler, A. (2008). Help seeking styles and their links to

school performance. Unpublished Manuscript, Tel Aviv University.

Mauss, M. (1954). The gift: Forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies.

Glencoe, IL: Free Press. (Original work published 1907).

Nadler, A. (1986). Self esteem and help seeking and receiving: Empirical and

theoretical perspectives. In B. A. Maher (Ed.), Progress in experimental

personality research (Vol. 14, pp. 115-165). New York: Academic Press.

Nadler, A. (1991). Help-seeking behavior, psychological costs and instrumental

benefits. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology

(Vol. 12, pp. 290-312). New York: Sage.

Nadler, A. (1997). Autonomous and dependent help seeking: Personality

characteristics and the seeking of help. In: B. R. Sarason, I.G. Sarason, & G.

Pierce, (Eds.): Handbook of personality and social support, (p.258-302).

Plenum: New-York.

Nadler, A. (1998). Relationship, esteem and achievement perspectives on autonomous

and dependent help seeking. In S. A. Karabenick (Ed.), Strategic help seeking:

Implications for learning and teaching (pp. 61-95). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Nadler, A. (2002). Inter-group helping relations as power relations: Helping relations

as affirming or challenging inter-group hierarchy. Journal of Social Issues, 58,

487-503.

Nadler, A., & Fisher, J. D. (1986). The role of threat to self-esteem and perceived

control in recipient reaction to help: Theory development and empirical

validation. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology

(pp. 81-121). New York: Academic Press.

Nadler,A., Fisher,J.D., Ben - Itzhak,S., (1983).With a little help from my friend:

27

Effects of single ormultiple act aid as a function of donor and task

characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,44,310-321.

Nadler, A., & Halabi, S. (2006). Intergroup helping as status relations: Effects of

status stability, identification, and type of help on receptivity to high-status

group’s help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 97-110.

Nadler, A., Halabi, S., & Harpaz-Gorodeisky, G. (in press). Inter-group helping as

status organizing processes: Implications for inter-group misunderstandings. In

S. Demoulin, J. P. Leyens, & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), Intergroup

misunderstandings: Impact of divergent social realities. Washington, D.C.:

Psychology Press.

Nadler, A., Harpaz-Gorodeisky, G. & Ben-David, Y. (2008). Defensive Helping:

Threat to Group Identity, Ingroup Identification, Status Stability and Common

Group Identity as Determinants of Intergroup Help-giving. Unpublished

Manuscript, Tel Aviv University.

Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2005). Prosocial

behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 365-392.

Schneider, M. E., Major, B., Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1996). Social stigma and

the potential costs of assumptive help. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 22, 201-209.

Sidanius, J. & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social

hierarchy and oppression. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Stürmer, S., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (2005). Prosocial emotions and helping:

The moderating role of group membership. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 88, 532-546.

28

Turner, J. C., & Reynolds, K. J. (2001). The social identity perspective in inter-group

relations: Theories, themes and controversies. In R. Brown & S. L. Gaertner

(Eds.), Intergroup processes (pp. 133-153). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior.

In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup

relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Turner, J. C., & Reynolds, K. J. (2001). The social identity perspective in inter-group

relations: Theories, themes and controversies. In R. Brown & S. L. Gaertner

(Eds.), Intergroup processes (pp. 133-153). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Van Vugt, M., & De Cremer, D. (1999). Helping the group or helping yourself?

Social motives and group identity in resource dilemmas. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 76, 587-599

Zahavi, A. (1990). Arabian Babblers: The quest for social status in a cooperative

breeder. In P.B. Stacey & W.D. Koenig (eds.): Cooperative Breeding in Birds.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.103-130.

Zahavi, A. & Zahavin A. (1997). The Handicap Principle: A Missing Pieced of

Darwin's Puzzle. New York: Oxford University Press.

29

Figure 1

Intergroup Helping Relations as Affected by Perceived Legitimacy and

Stability of Power Relations Between Groups

Low Perceived Legitimacy and Stability

of Differential Power

High-Status Group Low-Status Group

Motivation High motivation to reassert

power and diffuse threat to social

dominance

High motivation to

challenge existing hierarchy

Behavior Increased effort to provide

dependency-oriented help to low-

status outgroup

No help-seeking from high-

status outgroup

Unwillingness to receive

assumptive help from high-

status outgroup

Greater willingness to seek

and receive autonomy-

oriented help

High Perceived Legitimacy and Stability

of Differential Power

High-Status Group Low-Status Group

Motivation Medium to low motivation of the

high-status group to assert power

Low motivation to challenge

existing hierarchy. Dependency

on the high-status group is

relatively non-threatening to

social identity

Behavior

High level of giving dependency-

oriented help to low-status

outgroup

High level of seeking

dependency-oriented help from

high-status outgroup

Willingness to receive

dependency-oriented help from

high-status outgroup

30